Death Whisper:At least she's willing to stand up to Putin, Obama's a castrated weasel who would rather appease him.

Whether this is real or not, I don't know. It's so hard to tell these days. But if there's any waffling going on in these negotiations, it's from Europe. Russia stands alone which means Putin speaks only for himself. Obama has to herd the cats that make up NATO and they're the ones resistant to sanctions because they're the ones who will feel the repercussions most directly.

Bit'O'Gristle:She is right about that. Mutually assured destruction is the only thing keeping North Korea and other rogue nations from lobbing their missiles. Sure, she comes off like an idiot from the way she presents things, but she is right about that. A country is far less likely to shoot a missile if they know that they will get 100 back.

Except that no one, not even someone as marginally crazy as Putin is going to start a nuclear war. And certainly not over Russia taking over the Ukraine. So what she said was nonsensical.

And why the fark is the media still covering anything she says anyway?

Techhell:They think that America can destroy Russia before Russia can launch their own nukes back. They also honestly don't care if Europe gets nuked since there is next to nothing that they get from Europe (that they know of) so there is no personal loss for them.

That's kind of the crux of the entire situation. Conservatives seem to think that if Russia feared us, they wouldn't do these things. The truth is, Russia is doing these things because they fear us. In the last 20 years, their Eastern European buffer zone has almost disappeared. Riga and Kiev are 1.5 hours flight from Moscow. We are in military terms right on their door step. Even without a missile shield, our first strike advantage is daunting and Russia knows it. In expanding NATO and the EU so quickly, we've pushed Russia's backs against the wall. Not that I oppose NATO expansion, but this is one of the consequences.

Yeah,I would not watch her talk on Fox, I would not stick one in her box.

Well she never was "hot" like people say. I guess if you're grading on a curve like politicians, HR workers, gym teachers then okay.

So Republicans, still angry Obama won? Otherwise, McCain would have had a stroke his first week in office and we'd be living in a post nuclear dystopia by now. Road Warrior, Godzilla awoken, mass hysteria.

No, she was hot, but the level of crazy associated with that hotness was always too close for comfort. Now, of course, that hotness has decreased while the batshiatness has increased exponentially.

From the transcript: President Obama, though, he is nothing if not poll-tested, so even he knows that the deep issue of our time is that pressing stagnation facing the middle class. Those good working class families, just can't get ahead and that's why he baits the GOP establishment into a kind of tit-for-tat, things to distract, and then they pander, and in the White House they do such damage, but their agenda is failure and fiasco on steroids.

None of those people ran the world. There is a big difference between being one powerful woman among many powerful men, and having most of the world's leaders be women. We won't know the answer to the question of, "If women ruled the world..." until that actually happens.

Mentat:Techhell: They think that America can destroy Russia before Russia can launch their own nukes back. They also honestly don't care if Europe gets nuked since there is next to nothing that they get from Europe (that they know of) so there is no personal loss for them.

That's kind of the crux of the entire situation. Conservatives seem to think that if Russia feared us, they wouldn't do these things. The truth is, Russia is doing these things because they fear us. In the last 20 years, their Eastern European buffer zone has almost disappeared. Riga and Kiev are 1.5 hours flight from Moscow. We are in military terms right on their door step. Even without a missile shield, our first strike advantage is daunting and Russia knows it. In expanding NATO and the EU so quickly, we've pushed Russia's backs against the wall. Not that I oppose NATO expansion, but this is one of the consequences.

Thank you. SO many people don't understand that. They also don't understand that before the collapse of the USSR invading Iraq could have easily gone into a global war. The US has ties now in so many old Eastern Block nations that Russia is worried about being encircled.

Mentat:Techhell: They think that America can destroy Russia before Russia can launch their own nukes back. They also honestly don't care if Europe gets nuked since there is next to nothing that they get from Europe (that they know of) so there is no personal loss for them.

That's kind of the crux of the entire situation. Conservatives seem to think that if Russia feared us, they wouldn't do these things. The truth is, Russia is doing these things because they fear us. In the last 20 years, their Eastern European buffer zone has almost disappeared. Riga and Kiev are 1.5 hours flight from Moscow. We are in military terms right on their door step. Even without a missile shield, our first strike advantage is daunting and Russia knows it. In expanding NATO and the EU so quickly, we've pushed Russia's backs against the wall. Not that I oppose NATO expansion, but this is one of the consequences.

This.

We also have an issue where Ukraine is just not that important to the West, and intrinsically important to Russian security. So we have a scared weak Russia acting to defend something they view as an intrinsic interest and Western powers for whom the object of his aggression matters little.

I would find it very interesting to see if some clever diplomat couldn't find a way to turn this whole thing into an embarrassment for Russia by mobilizing support for a plebiscite in Chechnya. Russia supports ethnic self-determination, doesn't it?

Coming on a Bicycle:Graffito: Coming on a Bicycle: Ok. But it doesn't really do anything to diminish the way that Obama *has* royally farked up with Putin. Twice now.

How so?

Twice now, Obama has said 'to here and no further' to Putin. The first time (Syria) he just didn't follow through; this time it looks like he simply has no way to follow through. He should learn when to speak and when not to speak, because this is the sort of thing (the 'red line' thing) that you can only use sparingly, and then only when you have the possibility, the means and the guts to actually do something.

Yeah, because Presidents who use military action at the drop of a hat really stop Putin from invading his neighbors. Just ask the Georgians.

As for myself, I should point out that although I'm NOT defending Sarah's words - even THINKING about nukes in a matter like this is beyond insane and deserves a biatchslapping of Biblical proportions - she is right to the extent that we are slowly dismantling the deterrent. There has been a lot of talk about making the ICBM force go away, especially after the performance of the launch crews over the last few years. The bomber force is now down to the B-2s and the B-52s (the B-1s are non-nuclear capable by treaty and can't be made so again without long refits) and the missile subs are due to be replaced in the late 2020s, but some of them may be decommed long before that due to maintenance and age issues. Let's face it - there's going to be people who will try to pull things if they think they won't have to face the ultimate sanction. This isn't one of those times, but it's possible.

How many nukes, exactly, do you think we need? One for every major city in the world, plus ever minor one?

Seriously?

Let me give you a little background - I did six years as a weapons guy with a Strategic Air Command bomb wing, and another year with a unit in the Far East that may or may not still have nukes; I'm not sure so I'm not going to name it. That was seven straight years of transporting and guarding them, and I HATE the goddamn things with a passion - I still have the occasional nightmare about them, and the last time I laid a hand on one was nearly thirty years ago. We need enough - and I don't claim to be a strategic planner, so I can't tell you what that number is - to make sure that anyone else can't threaten us with their use without knowing that they will suffer just as much in return. I'd love it if that number was less than a dozen, and I'd be even happier if they were all gone.

The Russians may be insane, but they're not crazy - the only way these days they'd ever launch would be if US tanks were physically on Russian territory, and even then they can't be sure their missiles will work, setting aside the fact that at most they have about 10% as many functional nuclear capable bombers as we do (and 'capable' doesn't necessarily mean they can get up and do it on short notice) and maybe about 350 ICBMs, all of whose reliability is at best, problematic. And in any event, The only people who will draw down on us with a nuclear weapon are the Norks or the Iranians, and the Iranians only after they've laid the first one down on Tel Aviv. The point here is that you have to have a few to deter the worst of the bad actors, and as long as we have bad actors, we need the damned bombs.

It would be hard to imagine them winning re-election. McCrankypants wanted to keep the war in Iraq going, and was all in on the plan to start a war with Iran. He expressed a desire to get directly involved in the upheavals in Egypt and Syria. So, foreign policy could have been summed up with one word: war. He was against the economic stimulus package, which means the country would have recovered, if at all, from the Great Recession at a later date. These are just 2 aspects of his wrong-headed agenda. One could imagine protests in the streets. Add in a few blunders by VP Palin, and you're looking at a very overripe climate for re-election.

None of those people ran the world. There is a big difference between being one powerful woman among many powerful men, and having most of the world's leaders be women. We won't know the answer to the question of, "If women ruled the world..." until that actually happens.

Most of them were leaders who invaded other countries unprovoked, it goes all the way back to Cleopatra and even before her. Power breeds corruption not gender you sexist farking piece of shiat. Vote for Palin or Bachmann if you think women are less violent or idiotic than men, otherwise STFU, moran!

SlothB77:I'm glad the Democrats are here to show us how to treat women.

Yes, I'm feeding a troll, but I have to wonder how many people actually think people who criticize or oppose Palin do so on account of her being a woman, as opposed to pretending to think that so they can discount legitimate criticisms, or simply to troll.

But since you raise the point, the proper way to treat women is pretty much the same as the proper way to treat men. And that means not handling them with kid gloves or putting them on pedestals.

Mentat:Death Whisper: At least she's willing to stand up to Putin, Obama's a castrated weasel who would rather appease him.

Whether this is real or not, I don't know. It's so hard to tell these days. But if there's any waffling going on in these negotiations, it's from Europe. Russia stands alone which means Putin speaks only for himself. Obama has to herd the cats that make up NATO and they're the ones resistant to sanctions because they're the ones who will feel the repercussions most directly.

These things happen when you have rainbow armies . Ruskies pointing and laughing .

The point still stands. If Ukraine could actually count on us going to war for them, it'd be much safer.

We used to go to war for our allies. We've grown so weak under liberals.

See, this, on the other hand, is how you express an opinion that a liberal might disagree with, yet will probably feel obligated to pay attention to and take seriously. A reader might even take the time to disagree politely with a cogent argument of their own, and an actual dialog could result.

See the difference between that and going for "libtard" right off the bat?

None of those people ran the world. There is a big difference between being one powerful woman among many powerful men, and having most of the world's leaders be women. We won't know the answer to the question of, "If women ruled the world..." until that actually happens.

Most of them were leaders who invaded other countries unprovoked, it goes all the way back to Cleopatra and even before her. Power breeds corruption not gender you sexist farking piece of shiat. Vote for Palin or Bachmann if you think women are less violent or idiotic than men, otherwise STFU, moran!

My point still stands. Being a single female leader when all the rest are men (or being a single female CEO when the rest are men) is VERY different than being one woman amongst many other women leaders. We don't know yet how that would work out, but there are reasons to suspect that there would be less war-mongering in such a configuration.

The point still stands. If Ukraine could actually count on us going to war for them, it'd be much safer.

We used to go to war for our allies. We've grown so weak under liberals.

See, this, on the other hand, is how you express an opinion that a liberal might disagree with, yet will probably feel obligated to pay attention to and take seriously. A reader might even take the time to disagree politely with a cogent argument of their own, and an actual dialog could result.

See the difference between that and going for "libtard" right off the bat?

Start actually gathering our natural gas and oil. We sit on a ton of it. That is the only reason Russia is in play. Reduce their trade advantage, they will crumble. Oh, it will create jobs and wealth here as well.

Might be a good idea to drop a few on them. We do have clean nuclear weapons these days. It would send a message to the world not to fark with us and listen to what we say. Most of the Russian nukes and their delivery systems are probably in so much disrepair that I doubt they would hit their target. And if one did hit, say, Los Angeles, well that place is a cesspool and could use a good bulldozing, to clean things up. Plus, it would take quite a few deadbeats of the SS disability rolls, and ease the water situation out there a bit.

russia abrograted the treaty by which ukraine's sovereignity was guaranteed in exchange for ukraine giving up its nukes. furthermore, the us and uk have at best shown a weak interest in living up to their end of the deal.

ergo, give ukraine nukes back. despite russian propaganda, ukraine is not a country run by fanatial neo nazis. it's a country of responsible adults - even the criminal buffoon yanukovich would have treated his nuclear stewardship seriously.

starsrift:I think the whole upcoming Crimean referendum is great. As long as the UN can ensure that it's actually Crimeans and only Crimeans doing the voting.

IIRC, their Constitution is set up like ours; the entire country of Ukraine must vote on letting Crimea go. Otherwise, it's nothing more than secession. Regardless of the vote, Russia is going to keep its naval base there.